What I mean is are americans or brits going to EU newspapers to have and advice on what it is going in their countries? Obviously no. So when you persist to talk about EU vaccine with sources that does not understand how the EU works (US) or are anti EU (UK) what point do you think you make besides, don't look the mess in our countries, it feels better to badmouth others as a distraction.

seahawk wrote:

Good analysis on EU´s the failure of getting people vaccines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/02/worl ... ccine.html

I think this quote from the article sums it all up:

François Heisbourg, a French analyst, said simply: “The commission is not a government, but a box-ticking rule-based administrator. It was never designed to run a war.”

Whereas the UK went into war mode to combat the virus, and fought dirty where needed, the EU kept it's hands clean by outsourcing the fight to the pharmaceutical industry. And in the case of AZ, that outsourcing has gone spectacularly wrong.

When discussing, we need to talk vaccination rates. Hungary has broken ranks with the EU and ordered just about everything and have joined the high vaccination rate club (over 2.5X the EU vaccination rate, but low overall vaccination administered due to late start at elevated rate of vaccine, however starting to see an impact on the case rate, at least I think that is what we are seeing). Alas, for Hungary, I have to look at 4 different sources to make a conclusion on vaccines and how breaking ranks from the rest of the EU is helping them. If there is an "all in one" link, I would appreciate it.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail ... UN~GBR~USA
https://www.startribune.com/hungary-app ... 600037155/
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covi ... pean+Union
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... y/hungary/

Italy has made vaccines compulsory for health care workers:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/europe/i ... index.html

While most vaccination compulsion will, in my opinion, backfire, one must have it so patients know their caregiver is vaccinated due to the massive reduction in transmission would give confidence to the patient.
https://news.yahoo.com/covid-19-vaccine ... 51308.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... d%20people.

Being extra cautious is taking on risk. The EU needs to accept they took on too much risk and re-plan with less risk. Now this is just my opinion, but I am not seeing the re-plan, what I suggest:

1. Lean forward on first vaccines? (Have fewer vaccines on the shelf to get out 1st doses a la UK)
2. Buy that great Japan syringe that gets another dose (7) out of a Pfizer vial? https://finance.yahoo.com/news/japans-t ... 20656.html
I'm sure that syringe could get more AZ, Moderna, J&J or other doses out (minimizes wasted volume)
3. Lean forward on new vaccine approvals. In particular, get the ingredient supply chains and certification ASAP. e.g., NovaVax ramping up for UK production with first jabs scheduled for April 15th , but will not sign the EU contract as they cannot procure ingredients:
https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-novava ... 02423.html
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/14165 ... ble-UK-EVG
The French vaccine Valneva will be made in Scotland and as far as I know, the UK has abandoned any funding for in the EU due to blockages, since this vaccine isn't that far away from certification, where is the EU effort on it (I couldn't find a link). UK has started production and increased order to 100 million doess
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-55887264
At least they signed up for CureVac with a Swiss drug manufacturer: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/curevac ... ine-output
4. Selectively throw more money at the problem
5. Speed up the regulatory process. As noted, this is war. Build the factories (e.g. force 24/7 availability of government inspectors to speed construction, put government employees on long hour workdays until complete).

The UK has purchased numerous vaccines. I put a * next to ones being used or ordered by EU, but a ^ if a significant delay over UK ^^if not likely in EU in 2021 or ** if ahead of UK https://news.sky.com/story/what-are-the ... d-12261784
*1. Oxford-AstraZenecia (100 million doses ordered or 75% of population, In distribution, the contested vaccine). EU has received 30 million doses (prior links in thread). #2 vaccine in EU.
*2. Pfizer (40 million doses ordered or 30% of population, Orders held by EU), EU starting new factories and #1 vaccine they have distributed in EU (switch countries to see). https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covi ... untry=~DEU
**3. Moderna (17 million doses ordered or just about an eighth of the UK population) due small quantity in April for UK, being administered slowly in EU (see above ourworldindata link, very few overall), new factories in EU started. #3 vaccine in EU.
^^ 4. Novavax (60 million doses ordered or 45% of the population), held in EU for ingredients (not started). https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-novava ... 02423.html
*5. J&J (30 million doses ordered or 45% of the population due to being single jab) Held for factory ramp up. Factories in Italy, Germany, and France speeding up for this vaccine. I expect this will be the #1 EU vaccine in terms of people vaccinated.
^^6. Valneva (100 million doses ordered or 75% of the UK population), Scotland only factory producing this vaccine for UK. 2H 2021 production rate 250 million/year (so ramp to ~20 million per month, in production but also in certification)
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13920 ... me-riviere
^^7. Delayed until end 2021 to to certification failure. GSK/Sanofi (60 million doses ordered or 45% of the population, probably too late to matter) https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/13448452/ ... rders-60m/
^8. Curevac (50 million doses ordered, this one the EU has ordered a decent amount but as the EU funded development and factory pilot, they will be ahead). This will be also made by Bayer.

Now, there are other vaccines available:
*9. Sputnik V (bought by select EU states)
10. SinoVac (although I am questioning its effectiveness when I look at data from Chile, see ourworldindata link for vaccinations): https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... try/chile/
*11. SinoPharm (e.g. Hungary)
12. Covaxin (Bharat Biotech), only for India so far
13. EpiVacCorona (I'm not so excited about the efficacy on this one)
*14. Convidecia (I only know Hungary ordered it per 2nd link in this post)
As we debate (nice link on vaccine locations), 85% of vaccines have been administered in high income countries.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... acker.html

So the wealthy countries need to get their production up enough to export in mass (e.g., US, use or release the AZ in stockpile). Vaccines only do their magic weeks after being arms.
The EU needs to help the companies with ingredients, production, syringes (in particular those Japanese low waste syringes), and to stop taking on risk by avoiding risk (a basic fault of those not trained in risk analysis is not realizing being extra cautious is ensuring you take on more risk).

Normally I won't post a link twice in a post, but this one is important enough. The EU needs to replan to get up to Hungary, UK, USA in vaccination rates. We all know the AZ miss. That is a given. When things do not go correctly leaders replan. They don't point fingers as that demoralizes support teams (you might replace management, but do not point fingers at the team).
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail ... UN~GBR~USA

Lightsaber

GDB wrote:

Olddog wrote:

What I mean is are americans or brits going to EU newspapers to have and advice on what it is going in their countries? Obviously no. So when you persist to talk about EU vaccine with sources that does not understand how the EU works (US) or are anti EU (UK) what point do you think you make besides, don't look the mess in our countries, it feels better to badmouth others as a distraction.

......Many of us, as I have mentioned numerous times, am running out of different ways to express the same opinion (according to one further up my anger and disappointment with the EU on this was 'hate'), are actually really shocked at how much they have screwed this up, how they have tried to divert and blame others, in effect acting just like our wretched Brexiteers.

Worse you are giving a truly awful British PM, whom I loathe, who let's be honest lucked out on vaccines since in every other aspect of the pandemic he has been terrible, immense political cover.
And there lies the irony, Macron and Merkel, plus that EU commissioner who was known to be a poor performer at major German ministerial posts, have good reason, more than most, to dislike and distrust Johnson, are on this subject acting rather like him. Deflect, place blame elsewhere,.....

This is spot on at every point. It seems truly shocking that politicians in the EU, and the Commission head herself, have resorted to the same type of, at best misstatements, some would argue outright lies, designed to save face to their electorates to cover their incompetence’s. The same as Brexiteer politicians did in the run up to the referendum, and still do on the subject.

What is more shocking and frankly sad about it, from us non-Brexiteers, is the EU and its senior politicians seemed to be a beacon of the high road in political diplomacy and rules compared to the lying buffoon of Boris Johnson and co. People and an entity to be looked up to, but that is being shattered with nonsense rubbish about Oxford University/AstraZeneca contracts, safety of the vaccine, banning of exports etc.

Boris Johnson’s and the UK govt’s handling of the pandemic was abysmal, as the Economist quoted “Britain has the wrong government for the covid crisis” https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/ ... vid-crisis, but in all fairness ‘getting on with it’, signing up for vaccines and buying them as quickly as possible, spending hundreds of Millions on vaccine production lines, was exactly what was needed in this time of crisis. This part they did get right. Meanwhile, the EU, waiting for all 27 countries to all go through their processes to give approval, and then going through all the bureaucracy of the commission etc etc etc, just wasted time that it didn’t have on this occasion. Yes they can all hold hands afterwards and talk of the great collaboration between all the nations, and normally that is great, and very democratic, and in fairness normally a good approach on many issues facing the continent. But we are in the midst of a pandemic killing thousands of Europeans every day. Getting on with it was what was called for.

Sure, for the EU this was the first big test since Brexit, and it doesn’t want to seem like it ‘lost’ the idea of collaboration of all nations verses ‘going it alone’. Sure, personal political face means it is easier to turn on who can they can conveniently all deflect blame on, but they would have earned a lot more respect if they simply held their hands up and said they got it wrong on this occasion. Respect is hard to come by, easy to lose.

n.b. edited for quoting wrong article first time.

Has it ever crossed your mind 'eurotrader85', that maybe the alledged failure of the EU vaccination strategy -which is as has been explained ad nauseam in fact 27 different vaccination strategies combined with a single procurement process- is something largely fabricated by the English speaking press?
Because honnestly, what exactly is this alledged failure all about?

1- That in each of the 27 EU nations, the vaccination rate is lower than in the UK?
That is by choice, because the EU started vaccinations later and goes for the full 2 shot strategy over the ermergency 1 shot asap strategy of the UK.
Besides, they've started about 5 weeks later and will reach full vaccination about 5 weeks later if deliveries come in as planned, so I see no failure whatsoever?
The obsession to just look at first shots only is very much distorting the picture and as said: apart from being irrelevant, it is also temporarily only.
For a wider picture, maybe compare the EU vaccination rate to that of Japan, Korea, or other advances non-western nations...still such a failure?

2- That they are far more cautious about what/who they inject than the UK?
The EMA indeed takes a very cautious approach and a very thorough look before certifiying something, with every individual member state subsequently having the right to being even more strict or deviate from their recommendations.
I think that is a very rational thing to do, mirrored by non-EU countries like Canada too.. or the US which hasnt even certified A-Z yet. Or are they also a failure?
Only the UK seems to have decided that unless A-Z is proven to be more deadly than COVID-19 itself, it will not halt vaccinations: to me that smells like a 'there is no alternative' attitude more than anything else and definitely not a sign of being leading as the British press tries to sell its readers in an effort to boost morale in a sort of 'Dunkirk spirit'.

3- That there's more domestic critisism in the EU about the vaccine rollout?
That is largely a cultural thing: contrary to people in the UK or the US, you'll see French, Italians and others being much more vocal about the way in which things are handled in their country, not because they are necessarily done worse than elsewhere, but because people there expect far more from their country and its government. Big government really means something overthere, from cradle to grave. Same in Germany and other Nordic countries which are notorious for their obsession with perfection.
Anglo-saxon countries however have a tradition of small goverments and a lower sense of entitlement in the minds of their populations, which is generally much higher on the continent.

sabenapilot wrote:

Has it ever crossed your mind 'eurotrader85', that maybe the alledged failure of the EU vaccination strategy -which is as has been explained ad nauseam in fact 27 different vaccination strategies combined with a single procurement process- is something largely fabricated by the English speaking press?
Because honnestly, what exactly is this alledged failure all about?

1- That in each of the 27 EU nations, the vaccination rate is lower than in the UK?
That is by choice, because the EU started vaccinations later and goes for the full 2 shot strategy over the ermergency 1 shot asap strategy of the UK.
Besides, they've started about 5 weeks later and will reach full vaccination about 5 weeks later if deliveries come in as planned, so I see no failure whatsoever?
The obsession to just look at first shots only is very much distorting the picture and as said: apart from being irrelevant, it is also temporarily only.
For a wider picture, maybe compare the EU vaccination rate to that of Japan, Korea, or other advances non-western nations...still such a failure?

2- That they are far more cautious about what/who they inject than the UK?
The EMA indeed takes a very cautious approach and a very thorough look before certifiying something, with every individual member state subsequently having the right to being even more strict or deviate from their recommendations.
I think that is a very rational thing to do, mirrored by non-EU countries like Canada too.. or the US which hasnt even certified A-Z yet. Or are they also a failure?
Only the UK seems to have decided that unless A-Z is proven to be more deadly than COVID-19 itself, it will not halt vaccinations: to me that smells like a 'there is no alternative' attitude more than anything else and definitely not a sign of being leading as the British press tries to sell its readers in an effort to boost morale in a sort of 'Dunkirk spirit'.

3- That there's more domestic critisism in the EU about the vaccine rollout?
That is largely a cultural thing: contrary to people in the UK or the US, you'll see French, Italians and others being much more vocal about the way in which things are handled in their country, not because they are necessarily done worse than elsewhere, but because people there expect far more from their country and its government. Big government really means something overthere, from cradle to grave. Same in Germany and other Nordic countries which are notorious for their obsession with perfection.
Anglo-saxon countries however have a tradition of small goverments and a lower sense of entitlement in the minds of their populations, which is generally much higher on the continent.

As someone not living in the UK, living ‘on the continent’, absolutely not. Everyone I know, regardless of their nationality, is tired at how pathetic the vaccine rollout has been.

1) By choice? Really? Tell that to the thousands who would have died by the time they get on with it. Tell that to those of us who just want a jab as quickly as possible, that this slow roll out has nothing to do with incompetence, but it’s all choice. There is no way that we are just 5 weeks behind the UK. Just nowhere near.

The fact that the UK, that was so woeful in dealing with the pandemic, have seen cases and deaths come down so drastically (and the US is also a good example) as it ploughs out the vaccine as quickly as possible is a testament to the speed of vaccine rollout.

High-Income Far East Asian countries are an interesting one, most have adopted a lockdown the borders approach, don’t let anyone in or out, were not interested in the vaccine race, but they live in societies which do adhere to lockdown/social distancing/hygiene measures on a level that is frankly light years above the West and thus they have dealt with it much better. When I was living there I was genuinely in aww at the measures they take to keep infections down and the people adhering. Meanwhile Europe and the US were debating whether to wear a mask or not.

2) So by definition you are saying all this extra bureaucracy is good. During this pandemic I fundamentally don’t agree that the same process as if this was a budget, or a discussion on climate change measures, is correct and believe it has led to a slower rollout and thus further infections and deaths, and will continue to do so. You are right, that structure is exactly how the EU works, and every country, after the EU has gone through its motions, can further debate in its own right until the cows come home but this is not the time.

You are trying to negatively frame the UK as ‘Dunkirk spirit’ throwing anything into their arms, it is not, all jabs have had to go through Health department approval like any other drug. Do you really think the UK government would risk a poisonous unproven vaccine on its citizens? The difference is they went through the approval, spent hundreds of millions prior to lay the red carpet for production lines so it was ready as soon as and just ‘got on with it’. The sooner the countries within the EU/EU itself does the same the sooner it can stop flinging political mud around trying to save face. If you make the valid argument that the EU doesn’t have the legal right to do all that, and was only expected to procure vaccines, then it has failed in its role and should put its hands up rather than blaming others and now making poor arguments why it should now ban exports to make up for its incompetence, but then politics. Nothing more.

The US is doing a far better job than the EU even with the jabs it has authorised and again, is getting on with it. Sure the US should decide if its going to allow A-Z and if not release them to those who have, but given the US has ‘got on with it’ with already a relatively high vaccination rate with the jabs it has authorised, with cases rapidly coming down, then no it definitely is not a failure. It’s highlighting the benefits of getting on with it.

3 - I’m not really sure of the point here. It sounds like you are trying to frame the UK as having a similar attitude to small government to the US? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of views of society in the UK (and I don’t say that in any derogatory point to one viewpoint or the other). The UK rollout has been government led through the NHS and the expectation is on the government to get it right. The point being on vaccine rollout they have, even if its handling of the pandemic was abysmal and was/is rightly slaughtered by the public for that.


You can cut and slice it as you like, but politicians, whether domestic or at the EU level, throwing political mud rather than getting on with it is simply costing more lives on a daily basis. I feel sorry for three parties in this, 1) AstraZeneca who are being used as a political football by self-serving politicians-who are they trying to kid?, 2) Healthcare workers across the continent (and globally of course) who have gone through so much stress and strain on a daily basis caring for the sick and this is being exacerbated longer due to roll out incompetence’s and 3) us, the residents, whom sadly more will become sick and sadly some will die.

eurotrader85 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Has it ever crossed your mind 'eurotrader85', that maybe the alledged failure of the EU vaccination strategy -which is as has been explained ad nauseam in fact 27 different vaccination strategies combined with a single procurement process- is something largely fabricated by the English speaking press?
Because honnestly, what exactly is this alledged failure all about?

1- That in each of the 27 EU nations, the vaccination rate is lower than in the UK?
That is by choice, because the EU started vaccinations later and goes for the full 2 shot strategy over the ermergency 1 shot asap strategy of the UK.
Besides, they've started about 5 weeks later and will reach full vaccination about 5 weeks later if deliveries come in as planned, so I see no failure whatsoever?
The obsession to just look at first shots only is very much distorting the picture and as said: apart from being irrelevant, it is also temporarily only.
For a wider picture, maybe compare the EU vaccination rate to that of Japan, Korea, or other advances non-western nations...still such a failure?

2- That they are far more cautious about what/who they inject than the UK?
The EMA indeed takes a very cautious approach and a very thorough look before certifiying something, with every individual member state subsequently having the right to being even more strict or deviate from their recommendations.
I think that is a very rational thing to do, mirrored by non-EU countries like Canada too.. or the US which hasnt even certified A-Z yet. Or are they also a failure?
Only the UK seems to have decided that unless A-Z is proven to be more deadly than COVID-19 itself, it will not halt vaccinations: to me that smells like a 'there is no alternative' attitude more than anything else and definitely not a sign of being leading as the British press tries to sell its readers in an effort to boost morale in a sort of 'Dunkirk spirit'.

3- That there's more domestic critisism in the EU about the vaccine rollout?
That is largely a cultural thing: contrary to people in the UK or the US, you'll see French, Italians and others being much more vocal about the way in which things are handled in their country, not because they are necessarily done worse than elsewhere, but because people there expect far more from their country and its government. Big government really means something overthere, from cradle to grave. Same in Germany and other Nordic countries which are notorious for their obsession with perfection.
Anglo-saxon countries however have a tradition of small goverments and a lower sense of entitlement in the minds of their populations, which is generally much higher on the continent.

As someone not living in the UK, living ‘on the continent’, absolutely not. Everyone I know, regardless of their nationality, is tired at how pathetic the vaccine rollout has been.

1) By choice? Really? Tell that to the thousands who would have died by the time they get on with it. Tell that to those of us who just want a jab as quickly as possible, that this slow roll out has nothing to do with incompetence, but it’s all choice. There is no way that we are just 5 weeks behind the UK. Just nowhere near.

The fact that the UK, that was so woeful in dealing with the pandemic, have seen cases and deaths come down so drastically (and the US is also a good example) as it ploughs out the vaccine as quickly as possible is a testament to the speed of vaccine rollout.

High-Income Far East Asian countries are an interesting one, most have adopted a lockdown the borders approach, don’t let anyone in or out, were not interested in the vaccine race, but they live in societies which do adhere to lockdown/social distancing/hygiene measures on a level that is frankly light years above the West and thus they have dealt with it much better. When I was living there I was genuinely in aww at the measures they take to keep infections down and the people adhering. Meanwhile Europe and the US were debating whether to wear a mask or not.

2) So by definition you are saying all this extra bureaucracy is good. During this pandemic I fundamentally don’t agree that the same process as if this was a budget, or a discussion on climate change measures, is correct and believe it has led to a slower rollout and thus further infections and deaths, and will continue to do so. You are right, that structure is exactly how the EU works, and every country, after the EU has gone through its motions, can further debate in its own right until the cows come home but this is not the time.

You are trying to negatively frame the UK as ‘Dunkirk spirit’ throwing anything into their arms, it is not, all jabs have had to go through Health department approval like any other drug. Do you really think the UK government would risk a poisonous unproven vaccine on its citizens? The difference is they went through the approval, spent hundreds of millions prior to lay the red carpet for production lines so it was ready as soon as and just ‘got on with it’. The sooner the countries within the EU/EU itself does the same the sooner it can stop flinging political mud around trying to save face. If you make the valid argument that the EU doesn’t have the legal right to do all that, and was only expected to procure vaccines, then it has failed in its role and should put its hands up rather than blaming others and now making poor arguments why it should now ban exports to make up for its incompetence, but then politics. Nothing more.

The US is doing a far better job than the EU even with the jabs it has authorised and again, is getting on with it. Sure the US should decide if its going to allow A-Z and if not release them to those who have, but given the US has ‘got on with it’ with already a relatively high vaccination rate with the jabs it has authorised, with cases rapidly coming down, then no it definitely is not a failure. It’s highlighting the benefits of getting on with it.

3 - I’m not really sure of the point here. It sounds like you are trying to frame the UK as having a similar attitude to small government to the US? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of views of society in the UK (and I don’t say that in any derogatory point to one viewpoint or the other). The UK rollout has been government led through the NHS and the expectation is on the government to get it right. The point being on vaccine rollout they have, even if its handling of the pandemic was abysmal and was/is rightly slaughtered by the public for that.


You can cut and slice it as you like, but politicians, whether domestic or at the EU level, throwing political mud rather than getting on with it is simply costing more lives on a daily basis. I feel sorry for three parties in this, 1) AstraZeneca who are being used as a political football by self-serving politicians-who are they trying to kid?, 2) Healthcare workers across the continent (and globally of course) who have gone through so much stress and strain on a daily basis caring for the sick and this is being exacerbated longer due to roll out incompetence’s and 3) us, the residents, whom sadly more will become sick and sadly some will die.

I read the situation similarly. There is certainly a time and a place for high levels of bureaucracy and testing/caution.

When designing and implementing the railway safety procedures and features it’s a good time to make sure that everything is done through an abundance of caution. When the school children are on the track and a train is coming it’s not the time to undertake a formalised and approved risk assessment reviewed by upper management and understanding the level of child access granted to the safety personnel and the risk involved with allowing them to be handled by adults.

“I’m sorry madam but we didn’t push your children off the tracks because we couldn’t find Dave’s paperwork to say he was allowed to interact with children”

The virus train is coming and is ploughing in to people, it isn’t waiting for ducks to be in a row or forms to be signed or political arguments to be won, it’s killing people.

The EU might transfer some responsibility to AZ but they can’t transfer accountability for the increased deaths.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

The EU might transfer some responsibility to AZ but they can’t transfer accountability for the increased deaths.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The EU isn't accountable, it's the member states which are accountable. That's why the decisions made to postpone AZ vaccinations are made by the member states and not the EU.

There is a completely different kind of way to look at that "there is time an place for" argument than some of you have presented.

It is important to separate things that could be done an year ago and things that are on the table right now and some of you seem not to make the difference between the two as you seem to suggest things that were appropriate an year ago but no longer possible without a time machine.

A year ago there was a choice between trusting capitalism and private industries and competetition between different ideas in marketplace to solve the problem. Or government could step in. EU chose the first one and UK chose the second one. At that time UK government also chose to step into a satellite-positioning service market and they did not do almost any kind of due diligence what makes sense in that technology and market and burned billions for nothing to show for it. In covid vaccine they happened to bet on the right horse and props for them for that one guess gone right.

At this moment there are close to hundred different vaccine manufacturers and after summer for example Pfizer is going to produce billions of doses. Right now governments should absolutely not jump into meddling deep in there if you have any belief in capitalist system of doing business. Right now the capitalist market is working a full swing and governments are just going to make it worse it they for example start buying raw materials away from capitalist market. Any government iniatitive that starts now is going to be too late and only prevent the capitalist market that is currently at full swing getting things done much sooner than what governments can only do nnly to harm things.

Another issue is that which vaccines are the long term solutions and I am not an expert and have not studied things very much but I believe it is the mRNA vaccines that are better bet for long and medium term as they can be more easily be adapted to fight different strains of the virus. AZ is not mRNA and so I might be wrong but this might be the reason if somebody said AZ is treathening to quit the whole covid vaccine business. They might be seeing the writing on the wall.

Another issue is that EU has rules which try to ensure that EU treats every business with equal rules and so whole helping one company over others is not allowed and there are hundreds of companies in this space coming into the market. In this situation EU cannot help one company and I think this thing that somebody calls bureaucracy is exactly right at this very moment. Some might think that it is not but I think you are making the error of not thinking of this very moment but a situation an year ago. At that point doing like UK did might have been a good thing especially if luck was on your side and you happened to bet on the right horse. This is not true any more. Situation is dfferent at this moment.

At this moment capitalism and healthy competition is working at full swing and governments should do only government things. Not enforcing contracts right now at this very moment is going to get less vaccines into EU citizens arms in April-May 2021 which is the timeframe right now that is of critical importance. Nothing else is a substitute for that. Any proposed alternative approach for EU is at best going to help in years 2022-2023 which is way too late and could actually be hurting everything by disrupting capitalism from working and choosing winners and losers.

After summer situation is going to be completely different. We could have 30 approved manufacturers with billions of doses to choose from and some of them could have already have been adapted to the new variants better than others. Which ones are going to be that. We cannot know. If governments starts meddling with that situation trying to be smarter or more efficient than capitalism it is going to make things worse with 99% probability.

marcelh wrote:

The EU isn't accountable, it's the member states which are accountable. That's why the decisions made to postpone AZ vaccinations are made by the member states and not the EU.

In Germany PolyTicks positioning on AZ act inside a mine field. ( public media, some politicians ( FDP,AfD ) and the twittering blogosphere have placed them. ( just look at the hysterics my wifes coworkers distribute on twitter, Whatsup, ... )

Much work done to deconstruct any standing that AZ could have. ( and it looks like concerted effort :-/ )

The EMA position/decision has no standing in that hysteric context.

eurotrader85 wrote:

sabenapilot wrote:

Has it ever crossed your mind 'eurotrader85', that maybe the alledged failure of the EU vaccination strategy -which is as has been explained ad nauseam in fact 27 different vaccination strategies combined with a single procurement process- is something largely fabricated by the English speaking press?
Because honnestly, what exactly is this alledged failure all about?

1- That in each of the 27 EU nations, the vaccination rate is lower than in the UK?
That is by choice, because the EU started vaccinations later and goes for the full 2 shot strategy over the ermergency 1 shot asap strategy of the UK.
Besides, they've started about 5 weeks later and will reach full vaccination about 5 weeks later if deliveries come in as planned, so I see no failure whatsoever?
The obsession to just look at first shots only is very much distorting the picture and as said: apart from being irrelevant, it is also temporarily only.
For a wider picture, maybe compare the EU vaccination rate to that of Japan, Korea, or other advances non-western nations...still such a failure?

2- That they are far more cautious about what/who they inject than the UK?
The EMA indeed takes a very cautious approach and a very thorough look before certifiying something, with every individual member state subsequently having the right to being even more strict or deviate from their recommendations.
I think that is a very rational thing to do, mirrored by non-EU countries like Canada too.. or the US which hasnt even certified A-Z yet. Or are they also a failure?
Only the UK seems to have decided that unless A-Z is proven to be more deadly than COVID-19 itself, it will not halt vaccinations: to me that smells like a 'there is no alternative' attitude more than anything else and definitely not a sign of being leading as the British press tries to sell its readers in an effort to boost morale in a sort of 'Dunkirk spirit'.

3- That there's more domestic critisism in the EU about the vaccine rollout?
That is largely a cultural thing: contrary to people in the UK or the US, you'll see French, Italians and others being much more vocal about the way in which things are handled in their country, not because they are necessarily done worse than elsewhere, but because people there expect far more from their country and its government. Big government really means something overthere, from cradle to grave. Same in Germany and other Nordic countries which are notorious for their obsession with perfection.
Anglo-saxon countries however have a tradition of small goverments and a lower sense of entitlement in the minds of their populations, which is generally much higher on the continent.

As someone not living in the UK, living ‘on the continent’, absolutely not. Everyone I know, regardless of their nationality, is tired at how pathetic the vaccine rollout has been.

1) By choice? Really? Tell that to the thousands who would have died by the time they get on with it. Tell that to those of us who just want a jab as quickly as possible, that this slow roll out has nothing to do with incompetence, but it’s all choice. There is no way that we are just 5 weeks behind the UK. Just nowhere near.

The fact that the UK, that was so woeful in dealing with the pandemic, have seen cases and deaths come down so drastically (and the US is also a good example) as it ploughs out the vaccine as quickly as possible is a testament to the speed of vaccine rollout.

High-Income Far East Asian countries are an interesting one, most have adopted a lockdown the borders approach, don’t let anyone in or out, were not interested in the vaccine race, but they live in societies which do adhere to lockdown/social distancing/hygiene measures on a level that is frankly light years above the West and thus they have dealt with it much better. When I was living there I was genuinely in aww at the measures they take to keep infections down and the people adhering. Meanwhile Europe and the US were debating whether to wear a mask or not.

2) So by definition you are saying all this extra bureaucracy is good. During this pandemic I fundamentally don’t agree that the same process as if this was a budget, or a discussion on climate change measures, is correct and believe it has led to a slower rollout and thus further infections and deaths, and will continue to do so. You are right, that structure is exactly how the EU works, and every country, after the EU has gone through its motions, can further debate in its own right until the cows come home but this is not the time.

You are trying to negatively frame the UK as ‘Dunkirk spirit’ throwing anything into their arms, it is not, all jabs have had to go through Health department approval like any other drug. Do you really think the UK government would risk a poisonous unproven vaccine on its citizens? The difference is they went through the approval, spent hundreds of millions prior to lay the red carpet for production lines so it was ready as soon as and just ‘got on with it’. The sooner the countries within the EU/EU itself does the same the sooner it can stop flinging political mud around trying to save face. If you make the valid argument that the EU doesn’t have the legal right to do all that, and was only expected to procure vaccines, then it has failed in its role and should put its hands up rather than blaming others and now making poor arguments why it should now ban exports to make up for its incompetence, but then politics. Nothing more.

The US is doing a far better job than the EU even with the jabs it has authorised and again, is getting on with it. Sure the US should decide if its going to allow A-Z and if not release them to those who have, but given the US has ‘got on with it’ with already a relatively high vaccination rate with the jabs it has authorised, with cases rapidly coming down, then no it definitely is not a failure. It’s highlighting the benefits of getting on with it.

3 - I’m not really sure of the point here. It sounds like you are trying to frame the UK as having a similar attitude to small government to the US? That is a fundamental misunderstanding of views of society in the UK (and I don’t say that in any derogatory point to one viewpoint or the other). The UK rollout has been government led through the NHS and the expectation is on the government to get it right. The point being on vaccine rollout they have, even if its handling of the pandemic was abysmal and was/is rightly slaughtered by the public for that.


You can cut and slice it as you like, but politicians, whether domestic or at the EU level, throwing political mud rather than getting on with it is simply costing more lives on a daily basis. I feel sorry for three parties in this, 1) AstraZeneca who are being used as a political football by self-serving politicians-who are they trying to kid?, 2) Healthcare workers across the continent (and globally of course) who have gone through so much stress and strain on a daily basis caring for the sick and this is being exacerbated longer due to roll out incompetence’s and 3) us, the residents, whom sadly more will become sick and sadly some will die.

If everything went according to plan the EU would have at least 70 million doses more than actual delivered. But go on, ignore all the facts and blame all of us.

eurotrader85 wrote:

GDB wrote:

Olddog wrote:

What I mean is are americans or brits going to EU newspapers to have and advice on what it is going in their countries? Obviously no. So when you persist to talk about EU vaccine with sources that does not understand how the EU works (US) or are anti EU (UK) what point do you think you make besides, don't look the mess in our countries, it feels better to badmouth others as a distraction.

......Many of us, as I have mentioned numerous times, am running out of different ways to express the same opinion (according to one further up my anger and disappointment with the EU on this was 'hate'), are actually really shocked at how much they have screwed this up, how they have tried to divert and blame others, in effect acting just like our wretched Brexiteers.

Worse you are giving a truly awful British PM, whom I loathe, who let's be honest lucked out on vaccines since in every other aspect of the pandemic he has been terrible, immense political cover.
And there lies the irony, Macron and Merkel, plus that EU commissioner who was known to be a poor performer at major German ministerial posts, have good reason, more than most, to dislike and distrust Johnson, are on this subject acting rather like him. Deflect, place blame elsewhere,.....

This is spot on at every point. It seems truly shocking that politicians in the EU, and the Commission head herself, have resorted to the same type of, at best misstatements, some would argue outright lies, designed to save face to their electorates to cover their incompetence’s. The same as Brexiteer politicians did in the run up to the referendum, and still do on the subject.

What is more shocking and frankly sad about it, from us non-Brexiteers, is the EU and its senior politicians seemed to be a beacon of the high road in political diplomacy and rules compared to the lying buffoon of Boris Johnson and co. People and an entity to be looked up to, but that is being shattered with nonsense rubbish about Oxford University/AstraZeneca contracts, safety of the vaccine, banning of exports etc.

Boris Johnson’s and the UK govt’s handling of the pandemic was abysmal, as the Economist quoted “Britain has the wrong government for the covid crisis” https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/ ... vid-crisis, but in all fairness ‘getting on with it’, signing up for vaccines and buying them as quickly as possible, spending hundreds of Millions on vaccine production lines, was exactly what was needed in this time of crisis. This part they did get right. Meanwhile, the EU, waiting for all 27 countries to all go through their processes to give approval, and then going through all the bureaucracy of the commission etc etc etc, just wasted time that it didn’t have on this occasion. Yes they can all hold hands afterwards and talk of the great collaboration between all the nations, and normally that is great, and very democratic, and in fairness normally a good approach on many issues facing the continent. But we are in the midst of a pandemic killing thousands of Europeans every day. Getting on with it was what was called for.

Sure, for the EU this was the first big test since Brexit, and it doesn’t want to seem like it ‘lost’ the idea of collaboration of all nations verses ‘going it alone’. Sure, personal political face means it is easier to turn on who can they can conveniently all deflect blame on, but they would have earned a lot more respect if they simply held their hands up and said they got it wrong on this occasion. Respect is hard to come by, easy to lose.

n.b. edited for quoting wrong article first time.

Actually, what is more shocking and frankly sad is how the UK has managed to politicise the usage/non-usage of the AstraZeneca vaccine. Incredibly, the British Ambassador to Norway -- an individual without any scientific/medical training -- was on the Dagsnytt 18 news programme on March 16; appearing more as a sales representative for AstraZeneca rather than representing Her Majesty The Queen and the UK government.

https://tv.nrk.no/serie/dagsnytt-atten-tv/202103/NNFA56031621/avspiller

Click on 2. AstraZeneca-vaksinen

-

Norwegian experts say deadly blood clots were caused by the AstraZeneca covid vaccine

“Our theory that this is a powerful immune response most likely triggered by the vaccine, has been confirmed”, says professor and chief physician Pål Andre Holme. Three Norwegian health workers under the age of 50 have been hospitalized. One is dead.

https://sciencenorway.no/covid19/norwegian-experts-say-deadly-blood-clots-were-caused-by-the-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine/1830510

-

On 11th March 2021, the Norwegian Institute of Public Health decided to temporarily pause vaccination with the AstraZeneca vaccine in Norway. The decision was made after reports of severe clinical cases internationally and a death in Denmark after vaccination. Since then, notifications of similar clinical cases and four deaths have also been received in Norway.

“It is a difficult but correct decision to extend the pause for the AstraZeneca vaccine. We believe it is necessary to carry out more investigations into these cases so we can give the best possible advice about vaccination to the population in Norway, says Geir Bukholm, Director of the Division of Infection Control and Environmental Health at the Norwegian Institute of Public Health.

“We have therefore decided to extend the temporary pause for the AstraZeneca vaccine until 15 April,” he continues.

https://www.fhi.no/en/news/2021/fortsatt-pause-i-astrazeneca-vaksineringen/

The topic is the EU Commision vaccine strategy. Please post on topic.

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.

The main advantage of vaccines is slowing the spread. Reducing how many people become sick and hopefully reducing new variants.

The UK and France basically have the same population (66 & 67 million respectively):
UK is now below 4k cases per day, 7 day average
France is at just below 40k cases per day, 7 day average
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

This is a vaccine strategy thread, fraction of people who had a single dose:
UK: 46% single dose
USA: 31.1%
France: 13.4%+ (data lagging a day)
EU: 12.5% (in family with many members)

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

There seems to be a benefit from vaccines above 30% of the population from the US data, but obviously not enough considering the US steady state rate of cases. UK shows 45% with some lockdown works amazingly well, and Israel has shown 60% of the population being vaccinated is more effective than I would have predicted.

In my opinion, the #1 advantage of vaccines isn't to protect the individual, it is to slow the spread of the virus. Israel and the UK show that it works.
Now to get more vaccine in arms in all countries, including those of the EU.

The USA has not had a good strategy, yet we are vaccinating. I personally do not think enough to get ahead of the next wave which is already getting ugly in New Jersey and Michigan. But for most of the USA, it will slow the spread. Same with the UK. Unfortunately for the EU, they are in the next wave.

I fully admit that I was discussing the 3rd and 4th wave differently, and after investigating New Jersey in detail, I realize it was exiting the 3rd wave while entering the 4th (different strains of coronavirus in each wave) creating a high level of base cases:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ew-jersey/
Vaccinations appear to be lowering the overall rate of hospitalizations and deaths, but some of those hospitalization metrics have been rising. New Jersey Health Commissioner Judy Persichilli on Wednesday shared data that shows a 28 percent jump in new admissions statewide in the last two weeks. The most worrisome date was a 31 percent increase in hospitalizations among those age 20 to 29, a 9 percent increase in those 30 to 39 and a 48 percent increase among those 40 to 49, she said.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronav ... n/2978366/

Now, what does New Jersey have to do with the EU strategy?
The EU is currently locking down for a rise that is concerned about the B.1.1.7, in particular France (but I cannot find fraction of cases, does anyone have a link):
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fr ... NewsSearch

Well, in my opinion the next wave will be P.1, B.1.351, B.1.427/429, B.1.526 and the two variants of concern from India where I just cannot find their number.
The only way to break the cycle is vaccines. Otherwise when this heavily B.1.1.7 wave completes, then the next wave will just start.

I only see one way to exit this and that is high vaccination rates. While there is a problem with AZ's deliveries, that is but one aspect. Only the UK heavily relied on AZ. There are many new vaccines coming out and I would like to see more on the EU's plans to accelerate their production and distribution. It is hard to make vaccines. Some will be more successful than others in production.

The goal should be to help AZ produce more (what do you need) instead of public fights.
e.g., Pfizer did the unusual step of stating the EU export controls were hindering production. I hope the EU is listening to the company to address any issues found.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/eu ... uxbndlbing

Also, notice that Pfizer is really effective in children ages 12-15. Actually, 100% effective in stopping symptoms. I would like to know more how the EU plans to divert Pfizer to protect the children. In other words, plans for other vaccines for adults.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.


Lightsaber

Well, at this juncture vaccinating a million people with AstraZenica is knowing 30 people, at least, will die.

All Norwegians over age 18 can now expect to be vaccinated by mid-July. Delaying or permanently halting the use of AstraZeneca's shot, will only delay the national vaccination goals by a couple of weeks.

As of March 30, 2021, Norway has 123.41 COVID-19 deaths per one million people, while the UK and US have, respectively, 1,890.84 and 1,668.79 COVID-19 deaths per one million people.

What is clear is that the non-vaccine exporting countries -- the UK and the US -- completely mishandled the COVID-19 situation from the very beginning and have together with a few other rich countries hoarded almost the entire global supply of COVID-19 vaccines and left very few for poorer countries. For all its faults, the EU at least, is letting COVID-19 vaccines manufactured in the EU being exported in significant numbers.

Denmark and Norway are waiting for more data. Norway, which has administered the AstraZeneca vaccine to 130,000 people under age 65, has reported five patients who had low platelets, hemorrhage, and widespread thromboses, three of whom died. That’s about one case in 25,000 vaccinees, “a high number with a very critical outcome in previously healthy, young individuals,” Watle says. The country hopes to make a decision on the vaccine within 3 weeks. It can afford to hold off: COVID-19 cases are relatively low and AstraZeneca is delivering so few doses that the extended pause won’t make a big difference in the short term.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/rare-clotting-disorder-may-cloud-worlds-hopes-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine

-

BTW, please do read this link on why the Nordic Countries, with high quality and efficient registers, don't typically underreport cases.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/30/overreaction-or-honesty-why-scandinavia-suspended-astrazeneca-vaccinations

Baldr wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.


Lightsaber

Well, at this juncture vaccinating a million people with AstraZenica is knowing 30 people, at least, will die.

All Norwegians over age 18 can now expect to be vaccinated by mid-July. Delaying or permanently halting the use of AstraZeneca's shot, will only delay the national vaccination goals by a couple of weeks.

As of March 30, 2021, Norway has 123.41 COVID-19 deaths per one million people, while the UK and US have, respectively, 1,890.84 and 1,668.79 COVID-19 deaths per one million people.

What is clear is that the non-vaccine exporting countries -- the UK and the US -- completely mishandled the COVID-19 situation from the very beginning and have together with a few other rich countries hoarded almost the entire global supply of COVID-19 vaccines and left very few for poorer countries. For all its faults, the EU at least, is letting COVID-19 vaccines manufactured in the EU being exported in significant numbers.

Denmark and Norway are waiting for more data. Norway, which has administered the AstraZeneca vaccine to 130,000 people under age 65, has reported five patients who had low platelets, hemorrhage, and widespread thromboses, three of whom died. That’s about one case in 25,000 vaccinees, “a high number with a very critical outcome in previously healthy, young individuals,” Watle says. The country hopes to make a decision on the vaccine within 3 weeks. It can afford to hold off: COVID-19 cases are relatively low and AstraZeneca is delivering so few doses that the extended pause won’t make a big difference in the short term.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/03/rare-clotting-disorder-may-cloud-worlds-hopes-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine

-

BTW, please do read this link on why the Nordic Countries, with high quality and efficient registers, don't typically underreport cases.

https://www.euronews.com/2021/03/30/overreaction-or-honesty-why-scandinavia-suspended-astrazeneca-vaccinations

30 in 18 million per prior. Where are you getting 30 per million? Also, prior rates assume ignoring the normal advice of taking aspirin and light excercise before and after the jab.

Also, when I plot the Nordic countries, I'm not seeing the rapid vaccination rate you alluded to.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

No doubt too high of deaths in US and UK. This is why I want the USA to use the AZ supply rapidly. The main point is to slow transmission.

But now they are doing better. In my opinion due to very high vaccination rates.

I am of the opinion that after the current wave it will be followed shortly by the P.1, B.1.351, B.1.526, and B.1.427/429. So if only delayed a few weeks, maybe a good call. I've already stated the rates of vaccination I think are needed to matter.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.

The main advantage of vaccines is slowing the spread. Reducing how many people become sick and hopefully reducing new variants.

The UK and France basically have the same population (66 & 67 million respectively):
UK is now below 4k cases per day, 7 day average
France is at just below 40k cases per day, 7 day average
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

This is a vaccine strategy thread, fraction of people who had a single dose:
UK: 46% single dose
USA: 31.1%
France: 13.4%+ (data lagging a day)
EU: 12.5% (in family with many members)

https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

There seems to be a benefit from vaccines above 30% of the population from the US data, but obviously not enough considering the US steady state rate of cases. UK shows 45% with some lockdown works amazingly well, and Israel has shown 60% of the population being vaccinated is more effective than I would have predicted.

In my opinion, the #1 advantage of vaccines isn't to protect the individual, it is to slow the spread of the virus. Israel and the UK show that it works.
Now to get more vaccine in arms in all countries, including those of the EU.

The USA has not had a good strategy, yet we are vaccinating. I personally do not think enough to get ahead of the next wave which is already getting ugly in New Jersey and Michigan. But for most of the USA, it will slow the spread. Same with the UK. Unfortunately for the EU, they are in the next wave.

I fully admit that I was discussing the 3rd and 4th wave differently, and after investigating New Jersey in detail, I realize it was exiting the 3rd wave while entering the 4th (different strains of coronavirus in each wave) creating a high level of base cases:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ew-jersey/
Vaccinations appear to be lowering the overall rate of hospitalizations and deaths, but some of those hospitalization metrics have been rising. New Jersey Health Commissioner Judy Persichilli on Wednesday shared data that shows a 28 percent jump in new admissions statewide in the last two weeks. The most worrisome date was a 31 percent increase in hospitalizations among those age 20 to 29, a 9 percent increase in those 30 to 39 and a 48 percent increase among those 40 to 49, she said.
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/coronav ... n/2978366/

Now, what does New Jersey have to do with the EU strategy?
The EU is currently locking down for a rise that is concerned about the B.1.1.7, in particular France (but I cannot find fraction of cases, does anyone have a link):
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/fr ... NewsSearch

Well, in my opinion the next wave will be P.1, B.1.351, B.1.427/429, B.1.526 and the two variants of concern from India where I just cannot find their number.
The only way to break the cycle is vaccines. Otherwise when this heavily B.1.1.7 wave completes, then the next wave will just start.

I only see one way to exit this and that is high vaccination rates. While there is a problem with AZ's deliveries, that is but one aspect. Only the UK heavily relied on AZ. There are many new vaccines coming out and I would like to see more on the EU's plans to accelerate their production and distribution. It is hard to make vaccines. Some will be more successful than others in production.

The goal should be to help AZ produce more (what do you need) instead of public fights.
e.g., Pfizer did the unusual step of stating the EU export controls were hindering production. I hope the EU is listening to the company to address any issues found.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/eu ... uxbndlbing

Also, notice that Pfizer is really effective in children ages 12-15. Actually, 100% effective in stopping symptoms. I would like to know more how the EU plans to divert Pfizer to protect the children. In other words, plans for other vaccines for adults.

Lightsaber

The Netherlands reported 5 severe cases in 400,000. That’s 1 in 80,000 relatively young folk being at risk of a severe side effect.

Extrapolate from that and you’re looking at 2.5 deaths and + 10 severe case survivors. These ‘survivors’ are at a very high risk of having severe neurological / cerebral damage. Much worse than most (if not all) COVID long-haulers. Add to that the fact that every severe case means an ICU bed taken out of the system for a prolonged period of time, and the the math gets complex.

That’s why many European and Canadian experts have landed where they have: “more data please”.

“If you look at the average 30 or 40-year-old Canadian, their risk of getting severely ill from COVID based on our current experience is substantially less," said Dr. Andrew Morris, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Toronto.

"You're asking them for the good of the country to take on a risk that they wouldn't even get with COVID. So why would you give them a vaccine that is more likely to give them harm than COVID is? It makes no sense."
...
Dr. David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto:

"The adverse effect here is rather devastating," he said. "[VIPIT] seems to be killing about half the people who suffer these consequences, and is highly likely to cause permanent neurological damage in survivors."

"Given that these are young people working in healthcare, it is likely that vaccination is conferring damage or death that they would not have suffered otherwise."
...
“Dr. Menaka Pai, a clinical hematologist at McMaster University and a member of Ontario's COVID-19 Science Advisory Table:

If you're older and likely to experience all the other horrible things that COVID does, including killing you, then your decision about urgency and needing any vaccine frankly is really different from somebody who is younger and probably better able to weather the storms of COVID."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazen ... -1.5973975

The bottom line is that some medical authorities have assessed that if the risk of a severe reaction that causes permanent neurological damage is higher than dying from COVID in certain age groups, it isn’t worth it.

Of course, as one of the experts in the article notes, in a Brazil situation, AZ makes eminent sense. Is yhe EU there yet?

art wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

“If you look at the average 30 or 40-year-old Canadian, their risk of getting severely ill from COVID based on our current experience is substantially less," said Dr. Andrew Morris, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Toronto.

"You're asking them for the good of the country to take on a risk that they wouldn't even get with COVID. So why would you give them a vaccine that is more likely to give them harm than COVID is? It makes no sense."
...
Dr. David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto:

"The adverse effect here is rather devastating," he said. "[VIPIT] seems to be killing about half the people who suffer these consequences, and is highly likely to cause permanent neurological damage in survivors."

"Given that these are young people working in healthcare, it is likely that vaccination is conferring damage or death that they would not have suffered otherwise."
...
“Dr. Menaka Pai, a clinical hematologist at McMaster University and a member of Ontario's COVID-19 Science Advisory Table:

If you're older and likely to experience all the other horrible things that COVID does, including killing you, then your decision about urgency and needing any vaccine frankly is really different from somebody who is younger and probably better able to weather the storms of COVID."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazen ... -1.5973975

The bottom line is that some medical authorities have assessed that if the risk of a severe reaction that causes permanent neurological damage is higher than dying from COVID in certain age groups, it isn’t worth it.

Of course, as one of the experts in the article notes, in a Brazil situation, AZ makes eminent sense. Is yhe EU there yet?

There is no mention of the increased risk of transmitting to others if you are not vaccinated. I believe that the incidence of clotting is much higher than normal in people infected with COVID-19, so declining vaccination will result in more people suffering clots than accepting vaccination. If there were sufficient vaccine around to avoid AZ without delaying vaccination, there would be no reason not to avoid the AZ vaccine.

The protection of others is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of getting a vaccine early. I feel lucky my neighbors either have it, are scheduled if they qualify, or are too young. With prior links that the vaccines approved for the EU reduce transmission 67% (one dose AZ) and higher (with Moderna and Pfizer 90%+ effective, I would assume less than 10% of the transmission).

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/astra ... 1612357579
I agree a delayed vaccination regimen results in more clots.
https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-pfi ... rld-2021-3

My poor neighbor has an 84 year old mom living in Paris trying to get vaccinated. He was telling me how careful everyone is there and how frustrating it is so many he knows have gotten Covid19. Then again, I was careful and caught a minor case.

Lightsaber

art wrote:

ElPistolero wrote:

“If you look at the average 30 or 40-year-old Canadian, their risk of getting severely ill from COVID based on our current experience is substantially less," said Dr. Andrew Morris, a professor of infectious diseases at the University of Toronto.

"You're asking them for the good of the country to take on a risk that they wouldn't even get with COVID. So why would you give them a vaccine that is more likely to give them harm than COVID is? It makes no sense."
...
Dr. David Fisman, an epidemiologist at the University of Toronto:

"The adverse effect here is rather devastating," he said. "[VIPIT] seems to be killing about half the people who suffer these consequences, and is highly likely to cause permanent neurological damage in survivors."

"Given that these are young people working in healthcare, it is likely that vaccination is conferring damage or death that they would not have suffered otherwise."
...
“Dr. Menaka Pai, a clinical hematologist at McMaster University and a member of Ontario's COVID-19 Science Advisory Table:

If you're older and likely to experience all the other horrible things that COVID does, including killing you, then your decision about urgency and needing any vaccine frankly is really different from somebody who is younger and probably better able to weather the storms of COVID."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/astrazen ... -1.5973975

The bottom line is that some medical authorities have assessed that if the risk of a severe reaction that causes permanent neurological damage is higher than dying from COVID in certain age groups, it isn’t worth it.

Of course, as one of the experts in the article notes, in a Brazil situation, AZ makes eminent sense. Is yhe EU there yet?

There is no mention of the increased risk of transmitting to others if you are not vaccinated. I believe that the incidence of clotting is much higher than normal in people infected with COVID-19, so declining vaccination will result in more people suffering clots than accepting vaccination. If there were sufficient vaccine around to avoid AZ without delaying vaccination, there would be no reason not to avoid the AZ vaccine.

Not sure what I can say other than that its your word against theirs, frankly. These folk aren’t exactly EU political hacks. Their on-the-record professional advice is that on balance, suspending AZ for under-55s is sensible. I doubt they’ve come to that conclusion without considering the bigger picture.

Should note that the article makes it clear that not all blood clots are the same; the AZ-related ones are especially dangerous - either fatal or permanently damaging. Think it’s safe to infer that these doctors don’t think COVID blood-clotting in under-55s poses the same risk on the same scale as AZ.

Now, Canada isn’t in the same boat as the UK two months ago, or Brazil yet, so there’s some leeway to not take unnecessary risks. (The per capita death rate in Canada is about 25% of the UK’s overall, and - over the past week - is around the same). Of course, this can change on a dime. Note that it isn’t clear, either, that several EU countries, like Ireland, Denmark, the Netherlands etc are in the same situation as the UK was 2 months ago, or Brazil has been throughout.

The main takeaway, therefore, is that while AZ may be worth a gamble in a backs-to-the-wall situation, like Brazil or the UK, if there’s room to avoid it for certain age groups, the doctors think the preliminary data suggests that it should be avoided.

That, I’m afraid, is not a flattering look for AZ or those who insist - despite inadequate data - that it is perfectly safe. Unfortunately, AZ is wrapped in the UK flag now, which means any criticism is inevitably viewed as political, while ignoring that age-old maxim: there’s no smoke without fire.

AZ can probably see the writing on the wall. They have agreed to supply vaccine at cost during the pandemic, but after the pandemic, nobody will want AZ anymore. They will end up making no profits at all, unless they start selling vaccine for profit right now.

That article makes one huge mistake, as the question is not AZ or no vaccine, but AZ or other vaccines 2 months later.

seahawk wrote:

That article makes one huge mistake, as the question is not AZ or no vaccine, but AZ or other vaccines 2 months later.

Well, here in Norway we're talking about a two week delay if the AstraZeneca vaccine is dropped for good.

" Hence, most medical "doctors" in the UK are not trained scientists "

I do have some doubts that having written a "Dr" thesis or not makes an effective difference in qualification.
( medical thesis (Dr.) in Germany on average does not go beyond "Diplomarbeit" done by Fachhochschüler.)

WIederling wrote:

" Hence, most medical "doctors" in the UK are not trained scientists "

I do have some doubts that having written a "Dr" thesis or not makes an effective difference in qualification.
( medical thesis (Dr.) in Germany on average does not go beyond "Diplomarbeit" done by Fachhochschüler.)

Well, at least you've got to write a thesis -- and a Ph.D. thesis in medicine and in a scientific subject is typically written at the start of a career in research; if one so chooses.

Please do note that a dr. med. degree in Denmark and Norway is equivalent to a German Dr. med. habil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Medicinae_(Danish_and_Norwegian_degree)

I am no scientist, but I am sure that both the present vaccines are safe to a greater or lessor degree, However what worries me about this is all the continual bad press that AZ gets whilst Pfizer gets no bad press at all. In my experience it is very unusual when comparing anything for one product to be perfect whilst the other one is less so. So this makes me believe there are other reasons for this anti AZ press and that is financial . A lot of people both government and companies have poured a large amount of money into developing these vaccines and probably have decided they need to recoup some of it. Now so I understand the Pfizer vaccine is selling for about 10 to 13 dollars a shot whereas the AZ is selling for 2 to 3 dollars a shot so if you were a country buying millions of these shots which would you choose ,as if you bought the Pfizer there might be some difficult questions to answer as to why you spent so much money when there was an equally good one so much cheaper
Now i live in the UK and I have had my first shot which happened to the Pfizer one, only because that is what they were handing out the centre near me and this was some 2 months ago now and ever since I have a nagging ache just where the needle went in . Is this DUE TO THE PFIZER jab probably not but rather that it is the result of me getting old
I do believe there is a lot of Headline writing in these reports which might just benefit companies and or countries

No one will ever ever ever find any evidence that there is any thing financial about the bad PR AZ is getting. We can rest assured that there will be loads of evidence to suggest that AZ push to sell at cost was just a cynical approach to corner the market in poor countries, but the EU found them out and the rest is history.

par13del wrote:

No one will ever ever ever find any evidence that there is any thing financial about the bad PR AZ is getting. We can rest assured that there will be loads of evidence to suggest that AZ push to sell at cost was just a cynical approach to corner the market in poor countries, but the EU found them out and the rest is history.

However the price of the AZ vaccine might have been set at cost to allow poorer countries to buy a much needed vaccine when they could not afford the more expensive one.
I do not know

vc10 wrote:

I am no scientist, but I am sure that both the present vaccines are safe to a greater or lessor degree, However what worries me about this is all the continual bad press that AZ gets whilst Pfizer gets no bad press at all. In my experience it is very unusual when comparing anything for one product to be perfect whilst the other one is less so. So this makes me believe there are other reasons for this anti AZ press and that is financial . A lot of people both government and companies have poured a large amount of money into developing these vaccines and probably have decided they need to recoup some of it. Now so I understand the Pfizer vaccine is selling for about 10 to 13 dollars a shot whereas the AZ is selling for 2 to 3 dollars a shot so if you were a country buying millions of these shots which would you choose ,as if you bought the Pfizer there might be some difficult questions to answer as to why you spent so much money when there was an equally good one so much cheaper
Now i live in the UK and I have had my first shot which happened to the Pfizer one, only because that is what they were handing out the centre near me and this was some 2 months ago now and ever since I have a nagging ache just where the needle went in . Is this DUE TO THE PFIZER jab probably not but rather that it is the result of me getting old
I do believe there is a lot of Headline writing in these reports which might just benefit companies and or countries

There is lot of nuance here, as you allude to.

If we were to use an aviation analogy, it would be akin to AZ being [insert carrier with questions about its safety culture] and Pfizer/Moderna being the carrier with a well known solid safety record. If the latter isn’t available, you’re probably going to be alright on the former. The real question, though, is when do you need to get to wherever you need to get to.

I think we’re viewing this issue through the prism of advanced economies with universal healthcare. The risks for governments of AZ taking out people are disproportionately high compared to your average emerging economy (like India).

One AZ death = the government/my doctors aren’t being honest with me, ergo there’s a problem with my elected leaders/ government and/or doctors/ healthcare system. One death in India = AZ is bad. And that’s about it - no questions about the government or healthcare system (to the extent they exist).

Therefore there’s always going to be a fairly large market for AZ’s vaccine (even some within the EU); it’s just going to face turbulence in countries where the precautionary principle reigns supreme (i.e. Canada and some EU countries) until the data is reassuring enough for healthcare authorities to take a chance.

The most noteworthy revelation in this entire spat is that the UK, which traditionally sticks very closely to the precautionary principle, has found itself in a situation where abandoning the principle and accepting the risk is deemed worthwhile - which is more likely to be a function of duress than preferred choice. That seems to have contributed to its politicization - the use of flags, nationalist garb etc to put a positive spin, “rally around the flag” etc.

ElPistolero wrote:

The most noteworthy revelation in this entire spat is that the UK, which traditionally sticks very closely to the precautionary principle, has found itself in a situation where abandoning the principle and accepting the risk is deemed worthwhile - which is more likely to be a function of duress than preferred choice. That seems to have contributed to its politicization - the use of flags, nationalist garb etc to put a positive spin, “rally around the flag” etc.

It's becoming a bit frustrating to hear logical argument described as "nationalistic garb".
But not nearly as concerning as the inference above that only the UK feels "under duress"
I'm pretty sure European Governments experiencing another wave of lock downs, rapid growth in cases and deaths, and undue pressure on health service are under a huge amount of duress..
Their response is just not consistent with that IMO.
Now is not the time for "Committee Culture".

As to the UK not having a choice, the links provided by Lightsaber show that the UK has 400 million doses on order, only 100 of which are AZ

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55887264

We DO have the choice that the EU states appear to have adopted of being ultra cautious, whilst our population continue to suffer and die.
But we clearly made the correct choice IMO. And the COVID stats back that up.
focussing on the first jab is clearly the right choice too - holding back doses for the 2nd jab is frankly an unaffordable luxury that will cost thousands of lives.

I have been a vocal defender of the AZ vaccine, having a) had it, b) seen my wife's care home residents and staff have it, and c) been exposed to the positive impact of it being rolled out across all care homes. Within 9 days of first dose, it very clearly saved us both a personal and business catastrophe. So I'll admit to a positive emotional attachment to it based on personal experience which is nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism.
The AZ vaccine has saved countless thousands of lives in the UK.
Better still, it has contributed to an absolute fall off the cliff of older residents being admitted to hospital care - almost completely.

Better yet, it unquestionably has contributed to a significant reduction in "R" value in the UK, as evidenced by the nose-dive in cases and deaths in the last month or so.
And no, the statistics aren't being fudged as one poster wants to imply (despite him/her being quite content with the overall death stats that show just how badly the UK has been hit - Happy with the bad stats - not happy with the good ones? No agenda there then....)

Now I have to admit that the personal experience above is predominantly in the older population, and that has been the strategy in the UK, especially in the older population where the vaccine needs to go to the recipient rather than the recipient travelling to the vaccine. It's ease of handling is a real advantage there.

Is there more risk to younger people? Who knows? I can understand a restriction on vaccinating younger (and thus less at risk) people if there is enough concern.
It feels a bit unfortunate that the first restrictions put on the AZ vaccine in some EU countries was amongst the older population who stand to benefit the most.
It's hard to argue that there isn't a negativity around the AZ vaccine in the key EU states. This thread vividly illustrates it...
But there seems no question that, based on our experience, the AZ vaccine should be being given to older at risk residents as fast as is humanly possible.
It will save very many lives.

To the "EU hardliners" that appear to have taken non-negotiable stances on the subject on this thread, I'd offer a view that working WITH vaccine suppliers to facilitate the best outcome for all is a way more valid strategy than hardline hit-jobs aimed at political capital at the expense of lives. It's clear there are difficulties all over the place in the vaccine supply chain. THEY should be the focus of political effort.

Perhaps worth the "EU hardliners" noting from the link above that the UK government has invested in a French firm to facilitate production of the Valneva vaccine.
Who would have thought in these post Brexit days eh?
Political capital? Without question. But in support of saving lives. Not instead of.....

Somehow we need to work out how to throttle back the rhetoric, and focus on the real issue here

Rgds

astuteman wrote:

It's becoming a bit frustrating to hear logical argument described as "nationalistic garb".
But not nearly as concerning as the inference above that only the UK feels "under duress"
I'm pretty sure European Governments experiencing another wave of lock downs, rapid growth in cases and deaths, and undue pressure on health service are under a huge amount of duress..
Their response is just not consistent with that IMO.
Now is not the time for "Committee Culture".

The UK government adopted its strategy two-three months ago, when it was under duress. It bears mentioning that the UK deaths/million are double what we’ve witnessed (1890) is double what it is in Germany, and the Netherlands and four times Denmark’s. This is not meant to be a put-down; it’s vital context (see below).

The “duress” is evident in the fact that the vaccinations have been carried out in a manner inconsistent with manufacturer recommendations (4 week intervals). There is a risk baked into this approach, which is why many countries are sticking to the original two dose schedule.

astuteman wrote:

As to the UK not having a choice, the links provided by Lightsaber show that the UK has 400 million doses on order, only 100 of which are AZ

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55887264

We DO have the choice that the EU states appear to have adopted of being ultra cautious, whilst our population continue to suffer and die.
But we clearly made the correct choice IMO. And the COVID stats back that up.
focussing on the first jab is clearly the right choice too - holding back doses for the 2nd jab is frankly an unaffordable luxury that will cost thousands of lives.

Two observations:

- There was no way of knowing that the longer than 4 week intervals would not have a negative effect. That was a risk. Risks are taken under duress. It’s paid off handsomely, but no point pretending it wasn’t a gamble.

- No one is disputing that the UK doesn’t have choices. As I’ve clearly stated, the equation about using AZ (the risk calculus) depends on when one needs to get to where they need to get to. The risk equation in the UK is - as noted above - different to what it is in other countries. AZ was what was most widely available at that point... and so it was used.

Refusing to acknowledge that COVID was having a more dire impact in the UK two months ago, and therefore required more drastic - and potentially risky - interventions simply highlights the nationalistic nature of this argument. “We got it right” is fine; “We got it right, therefore they got it wrong” is not. The British tendency to focus on the latter is problematic (and driven by some inexplicable sense of nationalism).

astuteman wrote:

I have been a vocal defender of the AZ vaccine, having a) had it, b) seen my wife's care home residents and staff have it, and c) been exposed to the positive impact of it being rolled out across all care homes. Within 9 days of first dose, it very clearly saved us both a personal and business catastrophe. So I'll admit to a positive emotional attachment to it based on personal experience which is nothing whatsoever to do with nationalism.
The AZ vaccine has saved countless thousands of lives in the UK.
Better still, it has contributed to an absolute fall off the cliff of older residents being admitted to hospital care - almost completely.

Better yet, it unquestionably has contributed to a significant reduction in "R" value in the UK, as evidenced by the nose-dive in cases and deaths in the last month or so.
And no, the statistics aren't being fudged as one poster wants to imply (despite him/her being quite content with the overall death stats that show just how badly the UK has been hit - Happy with the bad stats - not happy with the good ones? No agenda there then....)

The UK stats are not about good and bad; they’re about demonstrating the risk calculus that goes with determining how to apply the precautionary principle. Which is to say, if Canada had a UK type surge, it would probably say exactly what you’re saying about the effectiveness of AZ. The point is that a lot of countries haven’t reached that point, which is why they can afford to be ultra-cautious with AZ. With the British variant now spreading outside the UK, I acknowledge that even that can change on a dime.

Point being: there is an alternate world in which a less-affected UK might have taken a very different approach. Therefore second-guessing others’ approach without considering their context is not sensible.

astuteman wrote:

Now I have to admit that the personal experience above is predominantly in the older population, and that has been the strategy in the UK, especially in the older population where the vaccine needs to go to the recipient rather than the recipient travelling to the vaccine. It's ease of handling is a real advantage there.

Is there more risk to younger people? Who knows? I can understand a restriction on vaccinating younger (and thus less at risk) people if there is enough concern.
It feels a bit unfortunate that the first restrictions put on the AZ vaccine in some EU countries was amongst the older population who stand to benefit the most.
It's hard to argue that there isn't a negativity around the AZ vaccine in the key EU states. This thread vividly illustrates it...
But there seems no question that, based on our experience, the AZ vaccine should be being given to older at risk residents as fast as is humanly possible.
It will save very many lives.

To the "EU hardliners" that appear to have taken non-negotiable stances on the subject on this thread, I'd offer a view that working WITH vaccine suppliers to facilitate the best outcome for all is a way more valid strategy than hardline hit-jobs aimed at political capital at the expense of lives. It's clear there are difficulties all over the place in the vaccine supply chain. THEY should be the focus of political effort.

Perhaps worth the "EU hardliners" noting from the link above that the UK government has invested in a French firm to facilitate production of the Valneva vaccine.
Who would have thought in these post Brexit days eh?
Political capital? Without question. But in support of saving lives. Not instead of.....

Somehow we need to work out how to throttle back the rhetoric, and focus on the real issue here

Rgds

Virtually every country agrees on this. The debate is only on its safety in under-55s.

Should add that this notion that the EU has screwed up needs to be balanced against the fact that their refusal to go down the UK route of vaccine nationalism (or zero exports, if you want to frame it that way) has saved millions of lives around the world (90% of the vaccines in my country were from the EU as of a couple of weeks ago). I think we can all agree that they would be doing better if they blocked Pfizer exports.

It’s a curious double standard to apply, then. The only logical explanation is that it’s being viewed through silly political/nationalistic lenses like “my country did a better job”. Sure it did, but comparing a country that’s only looking after itself favourably with a bloc that’s exporting vaccinations worldwide in a global pandemic ... doesn’t just hint at nationalism; it is nationalism.

Granted, Macron shouldn’t have shot his mouth off. And AZ should have done more extensive testing among over-65s. But those issues have nothing to do with the current postures on the risk posed by AZ in younger folk.

lightsaber wrote:

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.

The main advantage of vaccines is slowing the spread. Reducing how many people become sick and hopefully reducing new variants.

The individual risk of vaccination needs to be lower than the individual risk of a Covid-19 infection times the risk of actually getting it. While it almost certainly does pan out on the level of society as a whole, that may very well not be the case of the younger, healthy population.
Risk factors other than age also have a different distribution in different countries. UKs obesity rate for example is 27%, in the Netherlands it is 20%. So, delaying vaccination for the 44-54 year old group will have a different effect there.
In practice most countries still use AZ for the 60+ age group, so there isn´t even really a delay, just shuffling around which age group gets which vaccine.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

On AZ:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/02/health/a ... index.html
Experts keep saying the benefits outweigh the risk, but by how much?
If you look at this at a global, or even a national, level, the answer is: a lot.
Consider this. Since the UK started vaccinating people on December 7 up until March 21, there have been 30 cases of rare blood clots, four of which were fatal. In that same time period, more than 2.5 million people caught Covid-19, and 63,082 people in the country died from the virus, government data show.
"It is vital that the vaccination rollout is not delayed," said David Spiegelhalter, chair of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication at the University of Cambridge.
He pointed to a model that showed that even with current low levels of the virus, delaying vaccinating 500,000 people between the ages of 44 to 54 would likely lead to around 85 hospitalization and likely five deaths.

So at this juncture, delaying vaccinating a million people is knowing 10 will die.

The main advantage of vaccines is slowing the spread. Reducing how many people become sick and hopefully reducing new variants.

The individual risk of vaccination needs to be lower than the individual risk of a Covid-19 infection times the risk of actually getting it. While it almost certainly does pan out on the level of society as a whole, that may very well not be the case of the younger, healthy population.
Risk factors other than age also have a different distribution in different countries. UKs obesity rate for example is 27%, in the Netherlands it is 20%. So, delaying vaccination for the 44-54 year old group will have a different effect there.
In practice most countries still use AZ for the 60+ age group, so there isn´t even really a delay, just shuffling around which age group gets which vaccine.

best regards
Thomas

Due to the shortage of vaccines in the EU (e.g., my neighbors 84 year old mom cannot yet get vaccinated in France), at this time I agree, it is just shuffling to more elderly.

A small difference in obesity will have a small difference in mortality. Getting people vaccinated early will do more to slow the spread and cut mortality.

As much as AZ is beat up on supply (and they should be), they did deliver 30 million of the 130 million doses the EU received 1Q2021. They are 23% of the supply. Removing 23% of the supply means a 30% increase in the timeline. So for an issue that is a few in a million, that can be mitigated by exercise and aspirin, my math says the risk is far higher being unvaccinated for the young. For society, fewer vaccinated will mean much more spread.

I'm very excited for the vaccines for children. Pfizer's results were amazing: https://news.yahoo.com/pfizer-says-covi ... 04111.html
Then again, the young have more mucus in the lungs and therefor should do better.

When I look at the slope of EU vaccines, it just isn't enough, e.g., looking at administered, it is leveling off:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

The daily rate of vaccination is low in the EU and dropping:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail ... pean+Union

At the same time the EU blocks 3.1 doses to Australia:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ex ... NewsSearch

To myself what matters is a virus wave is here and vaccine is available. Put it in older. I just hope the current wave doesn't become too much.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavir ... ry/france/


I see press of how the EU will accelerate their vaccine drive. When instead I see it slowing... that is concerning.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

I see press of how the EU will accelerate their vaccine drive. When instead I see it slowing... that is concerning.

When Pfizer are pretty much the only ones delivering on their promises..... 2/3 of all vaccines received in the EU (these are Spanish data, but since vaccines are allocated proportionally it doesn't change the picture). They have managed to deliver 3 times as many as AZ despite AZ order being 50% higher than Pfizer.

https://www.mscbs.gob.es/profesionales/ ... 210405.pdf

Just last week, AZ delayed their already delayed plans (by a matter of days, but still...) which meant all plans in place for mass vaccination had to be postponed by at least one more week (hopefully by tomorrow).

(Link in Spanish)
https://www.elperiodico.com/es/sociedad ... s-11610330

Given the new found worries about health in certain countries I presume they will now ban smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods etc which all have a much higher, and guaranteed, change of killing / causing health problems both short and long-term

sbworcs wrote:

Given the new found worries about health in certain countries I presume they will now ban smoking, drinking, eating fatty foods etc which all have a much higher, and guaranteed, change of killing / causing health problems both short and long-term

obesity is infectious now? Does the government inject you with fatty acids?

best regards
Thomas

lightsaber wrote:

As much as AZ is beat up on supply (and they should be), they did deliver 30 million of the 130 million doses the EU received 1Q2021.

Do you have a source?

https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

According to the official site, the actual number up and until April 5th 2021 is: 94,114,886 doses distributed to the EU/EAA countries.
We are already almost a week into Q2 and according to this source AZ has delivered 22,373,112 doses, so nowhere near your 130 million and 30 million..

lightsaber wrote:

When I look at the slope of EU vaccines, it just isn't enough, e.g., looking at administered, it is leveling off:
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/co ... pean+Union

The daily rate of vaccination is low in the EU and dropping:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail ... pean+Union

It's leveling of for just two days, after the well-known slow down of vaccination of AZ.
The planned ramp up for Q2-2021 can only take place when:
1. The possible issue with AZ is cleared (IMHO, it's exaggerated, but better safe than sorrow);
2. The volume of doses will be delivered by the manufacturers according to planning.

Still AZ delivered 25% of all doses. So with no AZ the EU won´t be done with the process till 2022.

seahawk wrote:

Still AZ delivered 25% of all doses. So with no AZ the EU won´t be done with the process till 2022.

Less than 24%, by the end of Q3 it is 23% if AZ delivers in full, only counting already approved vaccines, based on performance so far it will be 14%. Not using AZ at all would cost four weeks and delay having enough vaccines delivered for every single person from beginning of September to the end of September. And there are ~60 million people to young for any vaccine approved so far.
And that doesn't even account for Biontechs Marburg Ramp up, since the site isn't even approved yet.

Best regards
Thomas

marcelh wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

As much as AZ is beat up on supply (and they should be), they did deliver 30 million of the 130 million doses the EU received 1Q2021.

Do you have a source?

https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

According to the official site, the actual number up and until April 5th 2021 is: 94,114,886 doses distributed to the EU/EAA countries.
We are already almost a week into Q2 and according to this source AZ has delivered 22,373,112 doses, so nowhere near your 130 million and 30 million..

My error, I double added. It was 107 million doses total to EU. The delays to deliver to member states are not the manufacturer's problem. But my error, I added AZ to the sum by mistake.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-04- ... fizer.html

AZ delivered 29.8 million to EU, I rounded to 30.
http://famagusta-gazette.com/2021/04/01 ... ommission/


Which makes it worse without AZ. They are 27.85% of the supply in 1Q2021. Past performance is the best indicator of future performance.

Pfizer delivered 10 million doses early that will be subtracted from 3Q2021 deliveries. (See 1st link).

My main point holds, the EU needs AZ Vaccine. Now supply will improve as new factories come online. Do we really expect fewer delays in production?

To put it in perspective, the AZ miss was about as much vaccine as the EU received from other vendors.

The good news is J&J is due in later this month. or at least 600k for France (I suspect more for the EU as a whole, I just couldn't find a link)
https://news.yahoo.com/news/france-prio ... 01945.html

I also expect Pfizer and Moderna to deliver far more vaccine.

Lightsaber

Thierry Breton, the EU commissioner with responsibility for vaccine supply and distribution, today accused the Anglo-Swedish pharmaceutical company of being wholly at fault for a difficult and widely criticised start of the vaccination campaign in the EU

“If we had received the full 100% of AstraZeneca’s vaccines that were contracted to us, the European Union would be at the same level today as Great Britain in terms of vaccines despite having started later,” he told Le Parisien. “So I can say that the turbulence we have experienced is solely due to AstraZeneca’s failure to deliver. In the first quarter, AstraZeneca delivered only a quarter of the doses we ordered, while the British received all of them, even though our contract was signed before them, in August 2020.”

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ne-rollout

Still, despite AZ's complete production failure and flargant disrespect of their contractual obligations towards the EU, the EU will still reach immunity for the virus by end of June, thanks to other vaccine manufacturers who are overperforming.and will provide for an exponential increase in available vaccines in Q2 to make up for the shortfall by A-Z.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... ium-europe

June 2022?

lightsaber wrote:

marcelh wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

As much as AZ is beat up on supply (and they should be), they did deliver 30 million of the 130 million doses the EU received 1Q2021.

Do you have a source?

https://vaccinetracker.ecdc.europa.eu/public/extensions/COVID-19/vaccine-tracker.html#distribution-tab

According to the official site, the actual number up and until April 5th 2021 is: 94,114,886 doses distributed to the EU/EAA countries.
We are already almost a week into Q2 and according to this source AZ has delivered 22,373,112 doses, so nowhere near your 130 million and 30 million..

My error, I double added. It was 107 million doses total to EU. The delays to deliver to member states are not the manufacturer's problem. But my error, I added AZ to the sum by mistake.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2021-04- ... fizer.html

AZ delivered 29.8 million to EU, I rounded to 30.
http://famagusta-gazette.com/2021/04/01 ... ommission/

The ECDC is stating 94.1 million doses by yesterday and you are saying it's 107 million by the end of Q1, or - specific to AZ - 22.4 million doses according to the ECDC instead of the 29.8 mentioned by you. The ECDC is an agency of the EU, so I consider their numbers as more accurate than what is written in the press.

What the spokeswoman actually said was:
"European Union states are expected to receive 107 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines by the end of March, an EU Commission spokeswoman said on Wednesday, hitting an earlier target but far below initial plans."

and

"The Commission spokeswoman told a news conference that AstraZeneca was expected to deliver 29.8 million doses by Wednesday, in line with its revised-down goal."

Source (originally provided by Lightsaber):
https://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/wellbeing/eu-to-get-107-million-covid-doses-by-end-of-march-30-million-from-astrazeneca/ar-BB1f9Lc7?ocid=BingNewsSearch

So the key word is expected, we can conclude those expectations weren't met (not only by AZ, but also in a much lesser extend by the other manufacturers and in line with the numbers uptread about Q1 deliveries in the Netherlands I provided earlier.

My main point holds, the EU needs AZ Vaccine. Now supply will improve as new factories come online. Do we really expect fewer delays in production?

To put it in perspective, the AZ miss was about as much vaccine as the EU received from other vendors.

Worse; according to the press conference AZ had to deliver 120 million doses by Q1
"/Under contracts signed with drugmakers, the bloc had expected to receive 120 million doses by the end of March from Anglo-Swedish firm AstraZeneca alone"

The good news is J&J is due in later this month. or at least 600k for France (I suspect more for the EU as a whole, I just couldn't find a link)
https://news.yahoo.com/news/france-prio ... 01945.html

I found an updated news item (in Dutch) mentioning a total of 55 million doses in Q2 to be delivered to the EU (3 million to the Netherlands, starting April 19th): https://www.nu.nl/coronavirus/6124783/janssen-vaccins-worden-vanaf-19-april-aan-eu-geleverd.html

I also expect Pfizer and Moderna to deliver far more vaccine.

Pfizer: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2021/03/16/eu-ontvangt-10-miljoen-pfizer-vaccins-versneld-in-tweede-kwartaal-a4035753 in Dutch, but is quoting a tweet from Ursula von der Leyen stating "200 million doses for that quarter", including the 10 million additional doses which were originally planned for Q3 or Q4.

Moderna: https://nos.nl/artikel/2363445-nederland-wilde-extra-moderna-vaccins-niet.html in Dutch.
A lot of blabla, but for this topic the following quote is giving the numbers:
"The EU will receive 10 million doses of the Moderna vaccine in the first quarter, 35 million in the second and third quarters and 80 million in the fourth quarter,160 million in total. The Netherlands receives a share based on the size of the population."

AstraZernica: [irl]https://nltimes.nl/2021/03/17/astrazeneca-deliver-less-40-promised-vaccines-second-quarter[/url]
“AstraZeneca has unfortunately underproduced & underdelivered. This painfully reduced the speed of the vaccination campaign,” Von der Leyen said. “As for AstraZeneca unfortunately, they will only deliver some 70 million doses. This is down from the 180 million doses that they are contractually committed to deliver" to the EU in the second quarter of 2021.

recap Q2:
Pfizer: 200 million
J&J: 55 million
Moderna: 35 million
AZ: 70 million(?)

With 94 million doses already delivered up and until yesterday and 325 million to be delivered in Q2 gives a total of 420 million doses, which is enough to vaccinate 210 million people twice. Add the 55 million J&J, a total of 265 million people could be protected by the end of Q2 theoretically

Originally AZ was going to deliver 300 million doses in the first half of 2021; they will probably just hit the 100 million mark....

lightsaber wrote:

The daily rate of vaccination is low in the EU and dropping:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/dail ... pean+Union

I think what you see in the data is the long easter weekend (many people have 4 days off), so like on normal weekends less people get vaccinated and you also have a stonger lag in reporting numbers.
Vaccine deliveries from Pharma are picking up (additional capacity coming online, you can see it for example in Germany's last week deliveries). How the individual member states will cope, we will have to see.

lightsaber wrote:

At the same time the EU blocks 3.1 doses to Australia:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ex ... NewsSearch

From ABC News we learn:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.abc.ne ... /100032986

• Australia signed with AZ for local production and 3.8 Mio jabs provided by European factories in Q1 2021
• Got 300k jabs of Pfizer from European factories
• Got 700k jabs of AZ from European factories
• already notes the 3.1 Mio jabs of AZ that weren't delivered from your article.

If we take the EU ratio 120 promised/30 delivered and apply it to Australia we got 3.8/4 = 900k jabs of AZ. With the one shipment of 250k hold up by Italy/EU we get 650k jabs of AZ.
While I can understand the Australian government complaing about the 200k missing, I fail to see how EU's position about the 2.9 Mio additional jabs can be criticised.

Best regards, and stay safe
Jonas

More accurate numbers for France for 1st and 2nd doses, and by vaccine:
1 Pfizer 9 009 675
2 AZ 2 588 759
3 Moderna 880 502

Source: https://covidtracker.fr/vaccintracker/